C.Rajendra Raju v. The Inspector General of Registration & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Nov 2009
- Bench
- S PALANIVELUC
Outcome
Allowed
With the above observations and directions, these CivilMiscellaneous Appeals are allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66.A Division Bench of this Court in The Government of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. S.Jayalakshmi and others, reported in2009 (1) CTC 305, has held that when there is no fraudulent intention of evasion of stamp duty payment of instrument, the valueas mentioned in the…
- Para 88. Following the principles laid down in the above said decisions, it is to be held that when the fraudulent intention for evading the stamp duty could not be ascertained from the materials available before the authority, it could not proceed under premise that the…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 06.11.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUC.M.A.Nos.1063 to 1065 of 2004andC.M.P.Nos.6243 to 6245 of 2004 and 3340 of 2005C.Rajendra Raju...Appellant in CMA.No.1063/04C.R.Raju(HUF)... Appellant in CMA.No.1064/04 Purchaser C.Shanthi... Appellant in CMA.No.1065/04Vs1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-4.
The District Revenue Officer, (Stamps), Chennai-600 001.
The District Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Original Authority, Register Wing Authority, Kodambakkam, Chennai.... Respondents in all CMA's/ Appeal Authority Referring OfficerC.M.A.No.1063 of 2004 Appeal filed under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamps Act to set aside the order passed by the first respondent in Mu.Mu.No.18039/N1/2003, dated 30.09.2003, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.Sl PANo.607/2002 dated 18.03.2003.C.M.A.Nos.1064 & 1065 of 2004:-Appeals filed under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamps Act to set aside the order passed by the first respondent in Mu.Mu.No.18040 and 18041/N1/2003, dated30.09.2003, modifying the order passed by the second respondent inNa.Ka.Sl PA No.272/2002 dated 18.03.2003.For Appellant in all CMA's : Mr.S.BalasubramanianFor Respondents in all CMA's: Mr.Srikanth (Spl. Govt. Pleader C.S.) **** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENTIn view of the inter connectivity of the facts and circumstances, these appeals are taken up together and disposed ofby a common order.
2. The appellants are purchasers in pursuance of aMemorandum of Agreement, dated 02.04.2001, with M/s.TechnoEngineering Company of the properties situate in Nelson ManickamRoad, Chennai, with a total extent of five grounds and 325 Sq.ft. The Sub-Register after registration referred the sale deeds under Section 47(A)(1) of the Registration Act to the District RevenueOfficer (Stamps), Chennai, since he was of the opinion that the properties were undervalued to avoid stamp duty. The DistrictRevenue Officer (Stamps) by means of proceedings dated 18.03.2003fixed Rs.2,075/- per Sq.ft. as market value of the property and directed to pay Rs.4,58,224/-. The appellants preferred appeal before the first respondent, who by means of his proceedings, dated30.09.2003, after analysing circumstances fixed Rs.1,821/- perSq.ft. as market value and directed payment of stamp duty. Aggrieved against the said orders, the appellants are before this Court.
3. It is the bottom line contention of the appellants that the guideline value maintained by the Sub-Registrar could not be the basis for determining the correct market value, that the properties have not been undervalued, that the property lies as irregular trapezodial shape, from which the property is abuttingNelson Manickam Road only 40 feet, while the total extent is 5grounds and 325 Sq.ft that the plot is situated on the western side of the Coovam River and that the vendor applied to the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act and obtained 'No objectioncertificate' from them, after enquiry and inspection which shows that the property is worth about Rs.50,00,000/- and that the impugned order does not contain reasons for not accepting the value mentioned in the sale deed.
Conversely, the learned Special Government Pleaderwould submit that inasmuch as the order challenged before this Court does contain sufficient reasons for arriving at the market value of the property, there is no need to interfere with the same. In the impugned proceedings, it is stated that the inspection report would show that the property situates in Nelson ManickamRoad where commercial plots and buildings are available and the same is a business area and Rs.2,305/- could be fixed per sq.ft. as market value, that on 04.08.2003, the appellants appeared and projected their contentions and if the said contentions and the relevant files with the inspection report were scrutinised, it could be seen that a ground in this locality would fetch Rs.46/-Lakhs and that taking into consideration the shape of the site andother features Rs.1,821/- is fixed as market value per Sq.ft. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The learned counsel for the appellant would garner support from a decision of the Full Bench decision of the SupremeCourt in V.N.Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins.and Ors reported in 2009-3-L.W.236, wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:-
7.A bare perusal of the rules make the position clear that sub-rule (4) enumerates procedure on receipt of reference under Section 47-A. Rule 5 speaks about the principles for determination of market value. Sub-clause (a) refer to lands; (b) house sites ; (c)buildings and (d) properties other than lands, house sites and buildings. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 47-A clearly reveal the intention of the Legislature that there must be a reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance has not been truly set out in the instrument. It is not a routine procedure to be followed in respect of each and every document of conveyance presented for registration without any evidence to show lack of bona fides of the parties to the document by attempting fraudulently to under value the subject of conveyance with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty and thereby cause loss to therevenue. Therefore, the basis for exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act is wilful under valuation of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty.
A Division Bench of this Court in The Government of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. S.Jayalakshmi and others, reported in2009 (1) CTC 305, has held that when there is no fraudulent intention of evasion of stamp duty payment of instrument, the valueas mentioned in the sale deeds have to be taken as market value of the property.
Identical views have been echoed in may decisions of this Court including the ones, which are as follows:-(i)2003 (1) LW 562, S.Jayalakshmi Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others. (ii)2008 (4) CTC 486, Nalina Veeraraghavan Vs. TheChennai Metropolitan Development Authority and another. (iii)2008 (5) CTC 239, A.J.Mapillai Mahadeen Vs. TheSub-Registrar and others. (iv)2009 (1) CTC 698, Ezhilarasi and another Vs. TheInspector General of Registration, Santhome HighRoad, Chennai and others https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
Following the principles laid down in the above said decisions, it is to be held that when the fraudulent intention for evading the stamp duty could not be ascertained from the materials available before the authority, it could not proceed under premise that the property has been undervalued in the sale deed. Further, it is also contented by the appellants that in the original order there was no reason, how the authority came to the conclusion that the property was undervalued. As there is no mention in the order impugned or any other material to the effect that the property was fraudulently undervalued and that the registering authority has not furnished proper reasons for his reference, they would vitiate the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the same deserves tobe set aside and it is accordingly set aside. With the above observations and directions, these CivilMiscellaneous Appeals are allowed. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst. RegistrarssmTo1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-4. 2. The District Revenue Officer, (Stamps), Chennai-600 001. 3. The District Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Original Authority, Register Wing Authority, Kodambakkam, Chennai.4. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+3 cc to Mr.S.Balasubramanian, Advocate, SR.No.593461 cc To The Spl. Government Pleader,(C.S) SR.59432C.M.A.Nos.1063 to 1065 of 2004BKY {CO}TP/26.11.2009.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations and directions, these CivilMiscellaneous Appeals are allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
theIndian Stamps Act; Indian Stamps Act; Registration Act, 1908 — s. 47(A)(1); Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 06 Nov 2009. The bench was S PALANIVELUC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.